Re: [LARTC] Prioritizing forwarded traffic over locally generated traffic

[Alexander Samad <alex@samad.com.au>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7581 bytes --]

Hi

would it be possible to post the scripts that set this up ???

Alex

On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 05:55:36PM +0100, Neil Greatorex wrote:
> Many thanks to both of you for your replies.
> 
> I have managed to get the setup working how I intended now - by using HTB
> classes/qdiscs. I had tried this approach before as one of many, however
> what I had failed to do was create the two classes I am filtering the
> traffic into as subclasses of a parent HTB class that was limited to the
> rate of the connection. Now it works as I intended!
> 
> I'm now going to tackle the harder problem of doing it for downloading - I'm
> off to play with IMQ :-)
> 
> Again, many thanks for your suggestions/advice!
> 
> Cheers,
> Neil
> 
> --
> #include "sig.h"
> #define NAME    "Neil Greatorex"
> #define E-MAIL  "neil@fatboyfat.co.uk" 
> 
> http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=7889&t=58
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lartc-admin@mailman.ds9a.nl 
> > [mailto:lartc-admin@mailman.ds9a.nl] On Behalf Of kraquen
> > Sent: 24 September 2004 6:36 AM
> > To: jasonb@edseek.com
> > Cc: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl
> > Subject: Re: [LARTC] Prioritizing forwarded traffic over 
> > locally generated traffic
> > 
> > Sounds to me like he's trying to match via source IP.. which 
> > would catch 
> > everything just fine..
> > 
> > Niel,
> > I do something very similar, its fairly simple..
> > 
> > you want to mark packets in your prerouting, then match 
> > against them in 
> > your qdiscs..
> > 
> > i use an htb.. my upload link can handle about 85 kilobytes / sec.
> > 
> > I have several classes that match with various rates, the cieling for 
> > all of them is ~80
> > 
> > Then i have a class that matches the mark that i use for that 
> > specific IP.
> > 
> > That mark goes into a class with a rate of 2 KB/s and a cieling of 75
> > 
> > that class gets 75 when nothing else is running, and 2 if 
> > other classes 
> > are filling it up.
> > 
> > Hope this helps,
> > Jason
> > Jason Boxman wrote:
> > 
> > >On Thursday 23 September 2004 18:09, Neil Greatorex wrote:
> > >  
> > >
> > >>Hi,
> > >>
> > >>I'm a complete newbie at this traffic shaping / QoS stuff 
> > so please excuse
> > >>me if this is a silly question. I've searched and searched 
> > on Google and I
> > >>just end up confusing myself even more, so I thought I'd 
> > post my question
> > >>to this list and see whether someone can help me!
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >
> > >Sure.
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >>Basically, I am running a Linux box as a NAT router on my 
> > home network
> > >>(machine name marvin). I want to use mldonkey on the router 
> > box for P2P
> > >>downloads. What I wish to do, is to have any traffic that 
> > originates on the
> > >>internal LAN take priority over traffic that is generated 
> > from mldonkey on
> > >>marvin. I don't wish to restrict the maximum bandwidth for the P2P
> > >>downloads on a permanent basis if I can help it - so that 
> > all the bandwidth
> > >>is used all of the time.
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >
> > >So you'd like to classify p2p traffic from mldonkey 
> > (Overnet/Kad/eDonkey) such 
> > >that it is granted a lower priority than other traffic?  Not 
> > a problem.  
> > >However, because those three protocols use random ports, you 
> > cannot classify 
> > >'edonkey' traffic based on port.  You can use either ipp2p 
> > or L7-Filter to 
> > >match these flows based on layer 7 pattern matching, though.
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >>My plan was to use the PREROUTING and OUTPUT chains of the 
> > mangle table to
> > >>mark the packets, and then use some form of qdisc/class 
> > structure that will
> > >>prioritise one over the other.
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >
> > >I believe you can use the POSTROUTING chain of the mangle 
> > table and nab all 
> > >traffic.  L7-Filter has a nice graphic[1] available.
> > >
> > >[1] http://l7-filter.sourceforge.net/PacketFlow.png
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >>The aim of this is to have an upload that would normally take say 20
> > >>seconds from a machine on the LAN still take 20 seconds 
> > when mldonkey is
> > >>uploading - so the NAT traffic will take all the bandwidth away from
> > >>mldonkey. The closer to this aim I can get the better!
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >
> > >That makes sense, although the time interval is relative to 
> > the data size and 
> > >protocol being used, so it isn't a useful measure for the 
> > rest of us.  What's 
> > >the link size?  What's the file / data size?
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >>To test implementations, I am using SFTP to upload a file 
> > from both a
> > >>machine on my internal network (named slartibartfast), and 
> > marvin (the
> > >>router machine) simultaneously. The perfect behaviour would 
> > be for the
> > >>upload on slartibartfast to take 20 seconds, and the upload 
> > on marvin to
> > >>take 40.
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >
> > >Which implementations have you tried to use?  I'd imagine 
> > Wondershaper?  
> > >Others?
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >>I have tried various setups of qdiscs and classes, using 
> > various examples
> > >>from all over the web (including the LARTC FAQ/cookbook) 
> > but I haven't been
> > >>able to get anywhere near my aim. All of the attempts I've 
> > made have led to
> > >>both uploads taking near enough 40 seconds, as they are 
> > both running at 50%
> > >>of the available bandwidth. I would like it to give almost all the
> > >>bandwidth to slartibartfast for the first 20 seconds, and 
> > then all the
> > >>bandwidth to marvin for the remaining time.
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >
> > >The problem is likely that you cannot effectively match p2p 
> > flows that use the 
> > >'edonkey' protocols.  (Actually, the latest L7-Filter 
> > pattern matches do not 
> > >yet match eMule's new Kad network, so you'll still need to 
> > either disable 
> > >support for that in mldonkey or deal with latency issues that arise.)
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >>I would really appreciate it if someone could tell me whether:
> > >>a) This setup is actually possible!
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >
> > >Absolutely!
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >>b) If using the mangle table chains is correct for this
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >
> > >I believe so.
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >>c) If it is, the easiest/best/fastest way to implement it. 
> > Just some hints
> > >>for the right direction would be fine!
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >
> > >You might explore my guide[2].  I have a setup quite similar 
> > to the one you 
> > >wish to implement, except on my router does not generate any 
> > traffic.  (I 
> > >have mldonkey running on an internal machine instead.)
> > >
> > >[2] http://trekweb.com/~jasonb/articles/traffic_shaping/
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >>Many thanks in advance,
> > >>Neil Greatorex
> > >>
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
> > >http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: 
> > http://lartc.org/
> > >  
> > >
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
> > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
> 

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]